1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, N: W.F.P., PESHAWAR and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, N: W.F.P., PESHAWAR and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, N: W.F.P., PESHAWAR and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Fateh Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehr Zaman Khan, P.I. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th February, 1995,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 13‑6‑1994 passed by the N.W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, in Appeal No. 7 of 1993). North‑West Frontier Province Service Tribunal Act (I of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal of appeal by Service Tribunal for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Application for restoration of appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay was dismissed by Service Tribunal on the ground that satisfactory explanation to justify restoration of appeal was not given by civil servant‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant could not give proper explanation for not attending Service Tribunal on speed date and his counsel's absence on that date also could not be explained‑‑‑Orders in question, having been passed correctly no interference was warranted therein by Supreme Court‑‑‑Civil servant, however, was removed from service after proper inquiry on some other charges‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal being without merit, leave to appeal was refused. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against the order dated 13‑6‑1994 passed by the learned Chairman, N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Service Tribunal was dismissed. On 17‑6‑1993 neither the petitioner appeared nor his counsel. The appeal was dismissed for non‑prosecution. On 21‑9‑1993 an application for restoration of the appeal was moved before the Service Tribunal alongwith second application for condoning delay. The case came up for hearing before the learned Chairman, N: W.F.P Service Tribunal on 13‑6-1994. The learned Chairman dismissed the application on the ground that satisfactory explanation to justify resotration of the appeal was not given by the
2. We have heard the petitioner in person. He was not in position to give proper explanation for not attending the Tribunal on 17‑7‑1993. He also could not satisfy us as to why his counsel remained absent on the aforesaid date. We have gone through the impugned order and the daily diary maintained by the Service Tribunal. There is nothing wrong with impugned order which may require interference of this Court. Besides, it was brought to our notice that the petitioner was removed from service after due inquiry on some other charges. There is no merit in the petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. A.A./M‑2282/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? Leave refused.